redemption

I'm not stupid, and I do understand their arguments. Some of them I do not accept as valid and the others I do not feel outweigh the damage done by the practice of affirmative action.

Also, Red, I come here because I find a lot of the people on here enjoyable. Even the ones I disagree with. I like a good debate now and then, and am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong or have made a mistaken assumption about someone. And I like coming on to LSD because I'm waiting for my law school decisions and it's nice to commisserate with others in the same position.

That said, I don't find talking to you enjoyable. You're rude and condescending and have apparently been given the gift of infallibility because I haven't seen you admit you're wrong on very many threads (if at all). Because this is my leisure time, I'm going to to spend it talking to other people I enjoy about things I find interesting; and I'm more or less going to pretend you don't exist because that is what I would probably do if you wanted to spend my leisure time with me in real life. And I'm sure you think I'm stupid and don't like me either, but hey, whatever, that happens sometimes.

We live in a society where people are advantaged or disadvantaged every single day because of factors they cannot change. A person with a strong genetic predisposition toward alcoholism and a rough childhood is more likely to spend a good chunk of their time drinking than someone without either trait. Should they be given an automtic boost? A person with extreme social anxiety disorder is likely to have fewer extracurriculars than someone without it. Should they be given an automatic boost? Hell, there have even been studies that prove that ugly or short people are significantly disadvantaged compared to tall or attractive people in nearly every aspect of life. Should there be an automatic "hideous face" boost?

If you cannot say yes to these questions, then it is not the case that you have to agree with yours to oppose AA as it stands.

Quote

-- there is no danger of unconsciuos racism in the admissions process

This could be a valid claim, if there was any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Quote

-- there is no policy purpose that could be served by either turning out more black or hispanic lawyers or by turning them out from elite schools

Even if its accepted that AA does in fact produce more/better lawyers, why wouldn't the schools just simply admit more people? Because there's a cost to every action. By admitting an increased number of URMs, you're admitting a decreased number of whites/orms. If you want to argue that there should be more URM lawyers and less non-URM lawyers, then that's fine. But admit that rather than just couching it in the positives.

Quote

-- there is nothing to be gained from having a black classmate's perspective in constitutional law classes, etc

I don't believe that someone necessarily contributes something special simply by virtue of being X race. I think that diversity of experience is an incredibly important consideration, but I do not at all think that it specfically hews to racial lines. A second generation chinese immigrant who grew up in a poor area with a single parent most likely had a harder life and faced more racism than a rich mixed-race or latino person born and raised on the Upper East Side.

I don't remember ever having suggested that there wasn't a trade-off between the number of URMs admitted and the number of non-URMs admitted. [If I have, point it out to me. If I haven't, change your tone]. There is a trade-off, and these schools judge that it is worth it to them. This is no different from any other trade-off that they make, by the way.

You say that you don't think that diversity of experience hews to specifically racial lines. Who does? What these schools are saying is that race is an important consideration in considering a diverse class, not the only consideration, AND that it is the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the LSAT guidelines for admission. See? http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1426394.html#msg1426394

When you have read through that thread, you can, if you like, post a response there.

A caveat -- be intellectually honest. If it just turns out that you don't like AA because you don't benefit from it, say so or keep mum. If you have concerns about it other than that kind of motivation, I'd like to hear about them. I myself am undecided about AA -- the arguments that you have attempted to deconstruct are not mine, but the schools' -- so I could maybe learn something from you.

I don't remember ever having suggested that there wasn't a trade-off between the number of URMs admitted and the number of non-URMs admitted. [If I have, point it out to me. If I haven't, change your tone].

God, you are so insufferably arrogant. Where on earth do you get the gall to take me to task for "my tone" simply because I pointed out that you mentioned the positive effects of having more URM lawyers without mentioning the negatives? And if you really wanted to nitpick about whose "tone" was more irritating, I would humbly submit any of your other posts in this thread as prime examples.

Quote

There is a trade-off, and these schools judge that it is worth it to them. This is no different from any other trade-off that they make, by the way.

You're right, it is a trade-off, and these schools get to make that choice. Which is why I'm not arguing in favor of banning AA. I think that if (private) schools want to enact such a program, they can/will find ways to do it. I simply don't think it's a good policy.

Quote

You say that you don't think that diversity of experience hews to specifically racial lines. Who does? What these schools are saying is that race is an important consideration in considering a diverse class, not the only consideration,

Care to show me where that thread proves that race is "the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the lsat guidelines?" Unless I'm missing something, "stereotype threat" (even if assumed to be true, relatable, and sufficient to explain the gap) would hold true for other groups, such as the poor, the community college grad, or even the insecure. Each of these groups would experience it to some degree, yet none of them have a formalized admissions process by which their LSAT's are raised.

Quote

When you have read through that thread, you can, if you like, post a response there.

35 pages of posts to debate a topic that isn't really that interesting with people who will either refuse to hear any part of my argument or who will make broad sweeping generalizations? I'll pass.

Quote

A caveat -- be intellectually honest. If it just turns out that you don't like AA because you don't benefit from it, say so or keep mum.

Oh, really? Well, I'm sorry that I haven't met your standards, ma'am. From now on I'll learn to shut my mouth and keep those pesky opinions to myself.

And as a side note, if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, your assumption that because I disagree with AA as a policy it must be because I don't benefit from it is patently absurd.

Quote

If you have concerns about it other than that kind of motivation, I'd like to hear about them.

Uh, did you read my first post? The one where I laid out all the reasons why I don't believe that AA is the most effective policy, because it is both too narrow and too broad?

Quote

I myself am undecided about AA -- the arguments that you have attempted to deconstruct are not mine, but the schools' -- so I could maybe learn something from you.

From your tone and the many threads that you've argued this topic on, you certainly don't seem undecided.

And are you sure that these are the schools' arguments? I don't think that's the case. I think these are the AA supporters' arguments. From the adcoms that I've talked to about this particular issue, I don't get the feeling that AA is something they passionately support, looking at as an opportunity to truly right the wrongs of the world, but rather as something that they just do because that's what they have to do.

Logged

Ever

It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.

I didn't know whites were being denied access to institutions of power and wealth solely because they were white with no other factors weighting in. You're right, AA is racism. Oh wait. No.

Logged

redemption

God, you are so insufferably arrogant. Where on earth do you get the gall to take me to task for "my tone" simply because I pointed out that you mentioned the positive effects of having more URM lawyers without mentioning the negatives? And if you really wanted to nitpick about whose "tone" was more irritating, I would humbly submit any of your other posts in this thread as prime examples.

lol. You're quite emotional aren't you? female private part.

Logged

parsley

The problem with this thread is that the argument has been crafted that if you agree with some of these premises and follow along, then you have to reach the public policy conclusion of affirmative action.

But in public policy decisions, there is often a gap between the theoretical solution and the realistic implementation of that solution. But in this case, I don't even buy the theoretical solution.

Why can't I agree with all of those claims (which I don't) and then arrive at the solution of helping applicants become more equal rather than pretending no gap exists? Like fixing broken elementary schools in poor areas? Or making inner city kids take classes in logic? Or any number of other potential solutions? The "here is a problem, here is a goal, therefore X is the way we should fix it" just doesn't hold. One can oppose the practice of affirmative action and still care about injustice in America. And that's not just a trade in slogans or calling someone a female body part.

But then all of that is immaterial if you are somehow affected negatively by affirmative action?

Oh, well, in that case, I'm sure we can't hear the arguments of anyone who benefits from it either? No person interested in the outcome of any debate can have valid opinions? Give me a break. When Red runs out of steam, she just mocks, ridicules and dismisses her opponent. It works -- but it's not that honorable and it doesn't prove her point. Just because nobody wants to argue with you anymore doesn't mean you've won.

Logged

bandaidstick

I would add another problem with this whole forum: there is a distinct set of opinions that the vast majority of people here hold. They do not argue well for them, and many people with more"diverse" opinions (who disagree with the vast majority) get attacked by a mass of unrelenting self-righteous, arrogant, insulting, condescending, but very poorly structured arguments.

I have been in Parsley/HeresHopin's position. As soon as they say one word that the rabble doesn't like, they come out of the wood work - some with fair and moderately well thought out arguments, some totally misunderstanding them, and others just complete bumbling fools. They have to deal with all of these, when really, very few have even addressed what they said, and even those that did, can't string a coherent argument together. Thus, they are left the black sheep on the thread - being made to look like a fool and being told to "watch their tone." Yeah! Didn't you know you were talking to RED!!! She doesn't have to make an argument. She just asks you for data, takes you out of context, calls you names and then says to the throng behind her, "Right guys?" And they all say, "yeah, that's right! Go back to your trailer/ read some history/ re read what I said/ read this other thread/ get me some facts to back that up." What they never do - EVER - is decisively defeat or even address their opponents' argument.

They have offered VERY well thought out, and very valid arguments. They are not even saying what EVER, Red, Brer etc are accusing them of saying. They are making VERY small and narrow claims about the relevant issue, backing it up with solid and spelled out arguments. Then, ppl simply attack them and condescend. The reason the mass is allowed to do it is because they have the majority opinion. Fine. Looks like it's not the majority opinion everywhere.

I conclude with one final observation. The real discrimination I see going on in this forum is an anti-southern discrimination. The hatred is extraordinary. Like the worst insult you can heave at someone is that they're from Alabama, The people who are far too sophisticated to go to a school any further south than Chicago, those that know vandy/ut/uva are great schools, but all those icky southern racists, driving their trucks, waving their confederate flags, watching nascar, trying to learn to read. It's disgusting, and it's wrong. People like that will argue all day for "tolerance" and "diversity" but then run from anyone with a different idea or background than theirs. It's mind boggling.